Indeed...

Lurker out There is my copilot.

I elect to not share your opinion because this is a discussion, not a majority vote. I don't take the opinion of the majority simply because there are more of them, because it's a common occurance that the majority is in fact wrong.

Of course, when I game with people and things go up for vote, then the majority gets the say. Just like, for instance, in any democracy. But at that point things are actually up for vote, not like now, where we are discussing things. I don't give a shit how many of you are of other opinions.

@Lurker: The time to discuss stuff is just like for you. On the internet, via email, during pizza-time, or whatever. I can also visit at least one player in his office. For an internet game it's even more simple: There is always an ooc thread.
Concerning that trap: SR4 doesn't model these thigns very well, but considering that a certain percentage of hands-on-mains experiences end fatal, but electricity damage in SR is somehow stun, then 16-20S isn't really so bad, and there's really nothing authoritarian about that. If you couldn't get hurt in the game, why play?

To be honest, I'd love to see you as a GM with a group of players who don't agree with you on anything, arguing about every single decision you make. I bet your opinion would change in a heartbeat. (If for no other reason than because you seem to feel that 'consensus' is synonymous with 'agreeing with me.')

I've lost track so I'm seeking clarity.

Is there anyone, other than Brainpiercing, supporting his claim that his method of concensus (as you understand it) is the best method for all gaming groups?

Two reasons behind this question:
1) Trying to find out if the "majority" is as overwhelming as it seems to be.
2) Hoping someone who does support the claim is willing to tackle the various issues that have been raised.

I am in direct opposition, but that should not come as a surprise to those that know me...

While I THINK that I see where he might be coming from, I am not entirely sure. There is little actual clarity in his arguments, and most of his points make little sense (signal to noise ratio maybe?), at least to me. I would love for someone else to help add some clarity as well...

3 for 3 against.

This is just one of the silliest threads I've seen in a long time. Walk away folks. It's not worth it. I suggest you follow my "3 Post Rule": If, after 3 posts in a discussion, you're stuck at the exact same point you were when you started, then you will never make any headway, because the person you're debating isn't interested in debate, discussion, or anything of the sort. He's already convinced that he's correct, and he wants validation, nothing less. So unless you agree with him 100%, you will never get anywhere.

Anyway, to answer another question:



We changed Board Software. We imported the previous user database, so everyone who was registered prior to that got that day as a new "Join Date".

Bull

*Shrug* No, but when we're not gaming we're not gaming. While we do have a facebook group for discussing things about game it's seldom a back and forth about rules. Maybe I'm extraordinarily blessed but people seldom want to argue rules with me or rules changes. I think and hope it's because by and large my players get that 1) I'm not out to screw them and will be even handed in my application of any changes. For example for now mind probe is verboten and some of the mind control stuff has been changed/clarified to be less of instant win button, but it would be a dick move to not apply the same restrictions to the NPC's. The other issue maybe stems from us beign a group of friends with a gaming problem (or sometimes a drinking problem) when we're gaming we're gaming, when we're just hanging otu we're just hanging out.

Also to be fair to the player/character in question. The situation was he'd discovered a set of shiping containers stacked up and all likelyhood that the sniper on top of them had lain some sort of trap (the sides we're greased) he was also aware but had forgotten that the opposition had a stomcloud hovering over the area. He tried to stealth climb the containers and didn't beat the stormcloud with his infiltration, letting the sniper know he was coming, who turned on the power tap he'd set up running to the top box of the shiping container. Where I think i did legitimately screw up in my quest to make it "mostly fatal in one go" was I gave it higher damage then anti-ship weaponry. When what I likely should have done was an unresistable amount of damage every phase and then a willpower check to pull away. It is Shadowrun afterall, a troll tank build should be able to reasonably plan his toughness to get him out of many spots that are fatal to other characters. He didn't die and we smoothed things over next session,m a little understanding goes a long way and all that.

I was responding to "i'm really asking is when do you find time for rules discussion that doesn't subtract from game time." Whether or not you have a need to do so doesn't really matter. There's plenty of time and plenty of mediums through which you can if you need or want to. During an actual session is not the time unless the GM specifically asks for help figuring out how to resolve something. Or in the case of sessions where everyone is working on designing a character or something like that, in which case open conversations about the rules are expected.

OK, one last try, and I'll try to keep things impartial.

Consider permutations of the following cases, where all assume the following:

You have a game with imperfect rules, which you still choose to play for whatever reasons.
The GM makes decisions during play time while giving a small amount of time to find a suitable rules quote.
The matchups happen for some reason in the first place - be it that there are no other roleplayers available at the time. they go on while successful, stop if not.

A: a reasonable GM
B: an unreasonable GM
Z: only reasonable players
Y: only unreasonable players
X: an unreasonable minority among the players
W: an unreasonable majority among the players

The definitions of unreasonable for GMs are:
- whimsical
- prone to favouritism
- railroading
- badly prepared
- poor grasp of scenario and rules
- whatever along similar lines

The definitions of unreasonable for players are:
- bad rules knowledge and doesn't care
- hogs the spotlight
- powergaming via cheating or forgetting unfavourable aspects of the rules, or chaining loopholes
- control freak
- intentionally disruptive behaviour (IC and/or ooc)
- whatever else along those lines


These cases will be examined for the following outcomes:

- will the players have fun?
- will the GM have fun?
- will the rules improve?
- wil the game run smoothly?
- how can the situation be improved?

Now, for the case of GM choice, where he does not create transparent house rules (after game start):
A + Z:
- the players should have fun, and since the GM is reasonable, their input should be taken into regard; obviously I'm going to say I would feel happier if I were trusted and respected as a player formally as well as implicitly
- the GM should have fun
- the rules won't improve because problems are solved via fiat and the not formalized
- the game runs smoothly.
- the situation doesn't improve

Overall: Success

A+Y:
- the players aren't having fun, because their unreasonable demands aren't met.
- the GM might have fun while the game lasts, but probably not
- the rules won't improve
- the game runs smoothly, within limits, but is bordering on chaotic
- the situation can only be improved by educating the players in some way, or finding a new group

Overall: Failure

A + X:
- the players are mostly having fun, but it is frequently marred
- the GM can have fun, but probably a bit less than in the A+Z case
- the rules won't improve
- the game runs smoothly, because the minority is controlled
- the situation can improve by educating the problem player(s), or throwing them out

Overall: Success

A+W:
- the reasonable minority is disrupted and probably not having fun, the unreasonable majority might, or vice versa depending on how heavy-handed the GM gets
- the GM will have his hands full, but since it's GM choice he can still have fun
- the rules won't improve
- the game runs smoothly, but is frequently disturbed
- the situation is hard to improve, because the reasonable people are in a minority

Overall: Tie;


I would say in A+X and A+W the GM-choice method can show its strengths. Which is obviously why I don't say that there isn't a place for it.

And now I'm running out of time, but you get the idea. Basically the only difference here between GM-choice and consensus is how house rules are handled after the fact, and who gets to make them. So in short:
For all of the cases with a majority of bad players or more the consensus method obviously fails. All the cases of bad GM the choice method fails, and consensus method struggles, because it will be stuck to using strict RAW. But at least the GM has to justify being a dick beyond being able to quote a rulebook. Bad/Bad fails every time. Minority bad players with reasonable GM is borderline both times. It might work, it might not. Actually, consensus works just as well, here, because the minority of bad playes is overruled.

So generally, it all boils down to this:
For Good/good I'm feeling better when I'm trusted, and when I can trust my players.
For Bad GM I favour the simple advantage of a dick having to be a dick openly.

And the others seem pretty tied to me (when totalling), because there comes a point when there is just too much disruption, and both have places where they succeed or don't. While an authoritarian GM might keep it under control, I doubt he's having a lot of fun, other than the sick kind.

The issue of improving rules is left aside for now. Probably a reasonable GM will provide reasonable house rules, and vice versa, no matter how. Likewise for players. That also seems pretty tied to me.

So that's why I believe that a superset/baseline of consensus is better by default. Most of the effectiveness is overall tied, but a reasonable player will feel more happy, more respected, etc. Even a disruptive player can be swayed if you explain to him what he's doing wrong (without any guarantee of success, obviously), whereas a dick player handled by un-understanding authority and nothing else will still be a dick. Those cases doomed to fail will probably fail either way.

There is also one more thing: Consensus puts FULL responsibility for the success of the game into the hands of everyone, whereas in a GM-choice game I'm pretty content with leaving that to the GM. So really I can be far more egotistic in a GM-choice game, because in the end, it doesn't come back to me. It's the GMs job to keep his game under control.

Which brings me back to my old statement:
If A(1)>A(2) while B to Z of 1 and 2 are tied, then 1 is better than 2. That's simple logic, which hasn't been disproven yet at all.

I'll give you credit. You are determined, but at this point I'm pretty bored by all of this. Maybe we can discuss something fun now?

Whimsy is important it belongs in the good gm column.

Ah, cool - thanks for the answer


You can't prove "fun" man..."fun" isn't a mathematical proof (I think? I've been out of college awhile...).

But so it doesn't seem like I'm ganging up on you, I think this is one of those areas where it's just an opinion. Your experiences have shaped your views so that you view group-consensus gaming as more fun. Others have experiences that have shaped their views otherwise. What's there to argue?

TLDR.

RI-Y,STL

This statement seems needlessly antagonistic, given that there is no such thing as a perfect rules system.






What sort of nonsense is this?

Just because the GM is taking full responsibility for houserules and rules calls, doesn't mean he has to take full responsibility for everybody having fun.

You seem to be saying that if you play with a GM who takes full charge of the rules, you feel that gives *you* a licence to be a dick. No wonder games with a GM in charge of rules always go wrong for you.

I'll 2nd Mayhem on the last part.

"There is also one more thing: Consensus puts FULL responsibility for the success of the game into the hands of everyone, whereas in a GM-choice game I'm pretty content with leaving that to the GM. So really I can be far more egotistic in a GM-choice game, because in the end, it doesn't come back to me. It's the GMs job to keep his game under control."

This part is basically crap. Whenever you sit down at a table to play an RPG, EVERYBODY has a responsibility for making sure that the group has fun. As you correctly point out, there is no such thing as a perfect set of rules that are designed to handle EVERY possible situation that can crop up during a game. For that one simple reason, everybody needs to cooperate to make the game work. If people don't cooperate, then the game breaks down. No matter who has final say about rules, interpretations etc.

As for the rest of you last post Brain, it's decent IMO. But can we pretty much agree that what most of us are really saying, is that if there are asshats at a table, the game suffers and becomes less fun for everyone. Similarly, when the game is comprised by resonable individuals, then the game will generally be good, no matter where the final say in game matters rests?


/Kyrel

I hate to say it, but that's kind of the impression I've been getting...

Is this thread going anywhere? If not, abandon it you've all voiced your opinions on the subject several times now, should be enough.

With due respect Grinder this is a more productive and interesting thread then half the ones we have on here. I for one am enjoyign the back and forth. We could start another NAN thread I suppose if everyone likes.

Yeah, let's not do that.

I agree with Grinder. Let's just put this thread out to pasture already.

Interesting, aggravating maybe. Productive... I don't know.

So basically I'm going to close this issue now. It's obvious that I can't sway anyone here. So I'm mainly going to add some related chit-chat.

Just once more about the responsibility thing, because there were so many jarring comments again:
In a GM-choice game I don't have any influence other than through my character, really. If the GM takes input then, maybe. In a consensus game every player can actually actively change, or work to change, the outlook of the game. For instance if something is going less well than envisioned, any player can suggest a change. Since I have never even experienced a GM-choice game that ran well, or even had a good GM in a game like that, I can't say how that is supposed to work there. And with my character my main responsibility should be not ruining the fun for the other players, but that's not a thing that affects the core of the game itself.


And just so that you can see where I'm coming from with all this:
In my roleplaying career I've gamed with a few groups of people, mainly one at university, about 10 people, give or take, who generally eventually switched through all the games we played, up to four games a person in a bi-weekly alternating cycle. We did this for years. Do note that there was a good deal of underlying neediness in this: It was just the thing that everyone wanted to join every new game. Still, there was not ONE, no, I correct myself, there was exactly one, person there whom I would trust to run a GM-choice game now. But they all did. That one game by the one good GM excluded (and he ran an informal consensus, too, in that he was usually swayed, eventually), the high points were dick GMs running at least engaging campaigns, but there was just so much of banging my head on the table that it was really hard to take. It obviously went down to lacklustre GMs running lacklustre campaigns. These were not bad people, they just couldn't fathom that I might not quite subscribe to their idea of fun, and they couldn't give me the freedom to have mine, too. And then it was mostly ineptitude: They started out nice, and then suddenly found they couldn't take what the characters could do anymore. And then they started disallowing stuff. In the end, they went right ahead and disallowed all kinds of stuff in the beginning (which is generally fine, at least I know then that I don't even need to join), because they couldn't take it. BUT they always had their favourite friends who could get everything, or at least more. And you could keep telling them exactly how they could improve their games, but they wouldn't listen.

The most common problem in D&D for instance was the "single monster issue". Any single monster either is so strong to tpk the party or quickly dies, because it has half the HP and 1/4 of the turns of the party. And then they began thinking that abilities that quickly killed their single monsters - oh, the terror, SAVE OR DIES! - were inherently broken. So the next step in the evolution was putting three-four identical monsters on the field. Now, again, a single tactic was enough either completely invalidate them, or the multiplied potency of the critter was enough to kill PCs. So again they start disallowing stuff, instead of actually looking at the core of the problem.

The other, more general, problem was that of the whiners: They somehow usually got their way, so basically, if you wanted something - even just a shiny new toy for the character - you had to start whining. And that was the only thing that worked. Sickening, really.

On another note:

Who was the guy that said he disallowed Mind Probe? While I believe that doing that per se is fine, how do you deal with clueless PCs? I even specifically recommended my team mage to take it, because it's just one of those convenient ways of giving information to the PCs without actually having to drop hints, clues and evidence everywhere. Or rather, to take some focus off the matrix for information gathering. As it is, he took Control Thoughts and we can now at least roleplay conversations where I have to answer every question (I do sometimes play the victims as obtuse). This is admittedly more fun than Mind Probe. So you see, I don't think it's wrong to disallow stuff if those things don't fit your campaign, and even in any consensus game the players couldn't just go ahead and re-allow it. Or else the scenario breaks down, and I turn over the GMing hat to someone else. Personally I'm a big friend of thinking around those issues, but I can see that there is a lot of work involved in that, and not everyone might be willing to do it.


As final thought, this is the paragraph I have on the role of the rules and the GM in the gaming system I am writing on at the moment - it's a work in progress, mind you. This was written long before this thread, but I've never actually proof-read it, now I've made minor changes. The full state of this system is... umm... still in infancy. There is definitely stuff missing those two paragraphs...


So, yeah, this is some of what I envision how things should be.

You're describing 'being a good GM', with extra nuclear failsafes.

That's what I've been doing all along: formalizing the failsafes. Where are the downsides?

No, you've been saying that it's fundamentally not a GM system, that it's categorically better, and that all GMs are sociopaths. While it's been true all along that all good GMs take input from the players, do not have 'favorites', and that the players can always not play, and that this is no different from having a formal vote (which is no different from 'whining', 'lobbying', whatever).

If you have a good GM and good players, mature with respect for each other and a desire to make sure everyone is having fun, it really doesn't matter which system you use.

If you have GMs or players that are dicks, they're going to ruin things for everyone no matter what system you use.

So it boils down to personal preference. And not being a dick.



-k

Sooo... making rule changes and ignoring the players is OK when *you* do it?

Pretty much as predicted by several people.

You have just said that you've agreed, deep down inside, with everyone else in this thread, all along. Or, instead, that you're a hypocrite.

What I am hearing.
At this point my brain imagines the swaying going like this thread, you stubbornly continuing in the face of everyone else, insulting and accusing, until he gives in.


So you were not a good fit with the group, why is this their problem? Find a group of people who share the same idea of fun that you do. If you do that, then the problem you're trying to fix goes away.


As we've learned from this thread, "wouldn't listen" translates to "disagrees with you". Just because someone disagrees, that doesn't mean they're not listening. It may mean you're not listening.

As opposed to the tactics you've chosen in this thread...

All I've gotten out of this is the your "best" way to play is to allow players to sit at a table that's a bad fit for them and have the GM give into their accusations, insults, and bullying until their idea of a good time is had. I'll pass and play non-games like Paranoia where rules like this can't apply.

Unless, of course, their idea of a good time conflicts with his idea of a good time.

Ok, so obviously everyone here is being wilfully obtuse. I've said exactly what I mean, multiple times. You don't get that more of a certain thing is actually more. You don't get what transparent rules mean, and under what circumstances a GM, yes indeed, can make his own. In fact, I'm surprised that half the people here can read a rulebook, what with your poor understanding of logic.

The hypocrites are here, in one big bunch.

Translation: Nuh-uh

Alright folks. This thread is going nowhere fast and generating more reports than consensus. I happen to find the subject interesting, so I dont want to shut it down outright. But if anyone has anything new to add now would be the time and if not lets just move along and let dead horses lie...

Actually, no, we understand you perfectly. You firmly believe that when you're a player, the GM and other players must cave to your will because you and you alone are the only person who knows the proper way to resolve things. When you're the GM, everyone else needs to shut up and accept your decisions because you're the only person who knows the proper way to resolve things. No matter how often you change your terminology or phrasing, no matter how you want to say phrases like "transparent rules" or "group consensus," you have made your point painfully clear both directly and in context.

You are, very much, a hypocrite. Not the people who see you for exactly who you are, as made evident by your countless posts on the subject.

Closed for 24 hours minimum.